The QA/QC program your firm refined, applied the same way in every office: discipline checklists, interdisciplinary checks and peer review.
A firm with several offices has one QA/QC program on paper and many in practice: each group keeps its own checklists, interdisciplinary checks depend on who happens to read the set, and quality records are hard to compare across projects. The QA/QC director sees the pattern only after a finding reaches a client.
This agent applies the program. It builds each discipline's checklist from the firm's master lists and the project's systems, compares calculations with schedules and drawings, flags code and standard references for a reviewer, assembles peer review packages and records the findings so trends are visible across offices. It never decides whether a design is acceptable. The reviewing engineer decides each finding, and the QA/QC director holds the program.
We connect the agent to the firm's master checklists, review records and project folders, once your IT and security reviewers approve.
The agent builds the checklist for the project, runs the comparisons and flags every mismatch and unconfirmed reference.
The reviewing engineer decides each finding. The QC record feeds the master lists and the firm's trend view.
A QA/QC director prepares review for a terminal with smoke control, emergency power and a long-span roof. The agent proposes a checklist from the master lists and the scope. The director removes lines that do not apply and adds what the master list never covered.
A coordination lead needs the medical gas, plumbing and mechanical schedules checked against the architectural plans. The agent compares them and lists each mismatch by room and sheet. The discipline leaders decide the correction.
A principal prepares a structural peer review for an office tower. The agent assembles the criteria, calculation summaries and drawings into the reviewer's package. The reviewing engineer decides what to raise.
A QA/QC director wants to see where fire alarm and sprinkler coordination findings recur. The agent summarizes the review records from every office by type. The director decides which standard to tighten.
It reads your master checklists, review records and project files in the platforms your offices already run, such as Bluebeam, Navisworks, SharePoint or Newforma, as your IT and security reviewers approve.
No. It runs comparisons and flags differences. The reviewing engineer decides each finding, and the engineer of record seals the work.
A reviewer your firm names, with the QA/QC director holding the program. Nothing enters a project record until a person has checked it.
One office or discipline group goes first. The same program is then fitted to the others, so each applies the same checklists.
The master checklists are updated and loaded as the reference set. Your reviewers check a sample of the next drafts against the new text.
The checklists, instructions and review records written for your firm are yours. Project data stays under the terms of the Claude plan your firm chooses, reviewed with your IT lead before connection.